My answer to this is that the MC trip had to be known to people outside of the agency and the Bureau. That trip and the evidence for it was intended to keep the Anti-Castro Cuban's on board with their part in the assassination, so it was, and had to be known to them. Indeed they probably witnessed LHO's NOLA sheep-dipping first hand. The highly-against-protocol Veciana-DAP LHO meeting served the same purpose, but that was one man who returned to his compadres and said "it's legit, and it's a go".

In the case of MC, the STORY of LHO's MC trip had to come-out, even if the evidence for it was bogus. In the case of the Veciana-DAP-LHO meeting, a simple threat to Veciana's survival would suffice.

We see, in these stories and operations, confidence building measures to keep the Cubans in on the plot. Of course, IMCT, they got double-crossed.

1. In essence, only Ruth knew the day to day of Oswald in Oct..... And I'm guessing she and Hosty did some talking. Her calendar for Oct would be worth a look....

2. Hosty, thru Woosley at INS knows of the Oct 16th Win Scott memo and that the CIA is placing his guy in Mexico.

3. By the 4th of Nov, FBI agent Peck is filing reports looking for any sign of Ozzie in Mexico and coming up empty...

4. Recently released a mexican informant working inside the Cuban consulate repeatedly says there was no Oswald....

5. It makes sense the CIA would orchestrate MX.

6. My question again, why Does Hoover cover for the CIA and create the LN bus trip when he obviously knows it was not Oswald down there?

David,

Thanks for the polite conversation. By the numbers, from my slow reading of the Warren Commission testimony of Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald and James Hosty:

1. Ruth Paine is entirely innocent of any involvement in the JFK plot, by my reading. The only thing she knew was when Oswald first appeared at her home on October 7, 1963. He was there to visit with Marina -- not to live there.

1.1. Ruth allowed Oswald to live there only on the weekends, and to share her garage for storage. She had no idea about any rifle. Marina did, but kept silent. That fact ultimately broke Marina and Ruth's friendship to smithereens.

1.2. Ruth first met James Hosty at her home on November 1, and then again on November 5, 1963. Yes, they did talk about Lee Harvey Oswald (although he first claimed he was there to speak about Marina Oswald).

1.3. Ruth Paine is a patriotic American. She immediately cooperated with the FBI, while maintaining a minimum of propriety and privacy for the Oswalds. Marina expressed her displeasure with Ruth Paine for cooperating so easily with the FBI. Ruth was surprised about any secrecy -- this was the American Federal Police. You don't mess with them.

1.4. Ruth was open Lee Harvey Osawald-- Lee worked at the TSDB -- and Lee lived in a rooming house in Dallas, though she did not know Lee's address. Ruth did know Lee's telephone number, and she didn't tell Hosty, because she was sure that the FBI could easily get it on their own (though she was mistaken about that).

1.5. Ruth planned on giving the FBI as much information about Lee Harvey Oswald as she could after Oswald's November 12th Soviet Embassy Letter, which she found very suspicious. She made her own copy of it in order to show James Hosty the next time he came around (which happened to be never).

2. The claim that Hosty knew about the October 16th Win Scott memo is correct as Hosty himself admitted in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996). But that is highly suspicious -- a breach of protocol. FBI and CIA didn't work together. FBI is domestic and CIA is international, and they don't informally share information. There had to be an unofficial plot going on. This is a hem of the plot, in my reading.

3. Bill Simpich (2014) fully explains why everybody at the lower levels of the CIA was coming up empty about Oswald in Mexico -- including Peck, including Lopez. This is because the top secret CIA Mole Hunt for the Telephone Impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City Embassy compound was in full swing since October 1, 1963, through December 31, 1965 and beyond. CIA high-command was watching snoopers like a hawk.

4. Edwin Lopez himself testified that (4.1.) he was certain that Oswald was inside Mexico City at during the final week of September and the first two days of October, 1963; and (4.2) he has no photographic evidence that Oswald was ever at the Embassy compound -- because the CIA held back all photos of Oswald.

5. I find no evidence that the CIA orchestrated Oswald's Mexico City visit -- until the Telephone Impersonation -- which they cracked within the first hour that it happened.

5.1. The CIA high-command knew for a FACT that the telephone voice was not Oswald, and they knew for a FACT that only a Deep Insider could have plotted that Telephone Impersonation.

5.2. The CIA did orchestrate their top-secret Mole Hunt. All the rest was orchestrated by Guy Banister -- that seems 100% clear from the Lopez Report. The Oswald FPCC Resume is material evidence.

6. As to your question, David, about "why Hoover covers for the CIA and creates the LN bus trip when he obviously knows it was not Oswald down there?"

6.1. This is an incorrect question. Hoover is only covering for the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES and therefore was never a LONE NUT.

6.2. There are three key puppet masters in Mexico City.

6.2.1. The Radical Right under Guy Banister is the main MC plotter, from September 26, through October 2.

6.2.2. The CIA got into the picture because of the Telephone Impersonation of Oswald on October 1st. This started their Mole Hut.

6.2.3. The FBI got into the picture only after the JFK assassination, covering all traces of ACCOMPLICES for Lee Harvey Oswald, as a matter of National Security (they said).

6.2.3.1. The Mexico City bus trip is a fiction entirely orchestrated by the FBI after the JFK assassination, in order to maintain an illusion of a Lone Nut Oswald.

6.3. It is the Radical Right who will ultimately remain concealed by Hoover's deceptions. The CIA is merely Hoover's scapegoat for the ragged edges of his Lone Nut fiction.

My point is that Albert Osborne had nothing to do (as far as I can see today) with the JFK Assassination.

His bad luck was being on the bus to Mexico City that the FBI selected to be its Bus Story to prevent the Mexican Immigration Service documents from being accepted -- namely -- that Lee Harvey Oswald entered and exited Mexico as a passenger in an automobile.

However -- I do find it suspicious that Albert Osborne was linked to the ACCC. That is suspicious to me because of my Walker-did-it CT. Ex-General Walker was also a member of the ACCC, through his long-time companion, Reverend Billy James Hargis.

The following is my opinion:

Billy James Hargis is a peculiar religious figure of 1963. For one thing, he was a close friend of DRE leader, Carlos Bringuier. They would speak at Right Wing rallies together, along with Ex-General Walker.

Carlos Bringuier, it is well-known, was the Cuban Exile who fought on Canal Street with Lee Harvey Oswald on August 9, 1963. Then, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler appeared on the William Stuckey radio show with Lee Harvey Oswald.

What is peculiar, is that Billy James Hargis purchased the rights to that Lee Harvey Oswald taped interview, and took that tape into a recording studio, and overdubbed his own voice over the voice of William Stuckey, to make it sound like Hargis himself was personally interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that Billy James Hargis was one of the co-founders of the ACCC, and Albert Osborne was a member of the ACCC -- and both men were (allegedly) accused of child molestation -- is suspicious to me. The ACCC was founded as an alternative to Christian religious groups' obeying the Supreme Court's Brown Decision to racially integrate US Public Schools.

(They tried to tell segregationists that God's Law forbids racial integration of public schools -- so that the parents at Little Rock High school, for example, freaked out and became violent in their public protests -- truly terrified of incurring the terrible Wrath of God. Yet I would note that child molesters have attempted to use private schools to (1) get freedom from racial law; and (2) molest children without government interference.)

The reason why Albert Osborne was (allegedly) a candidate for deportation according to the Mexican Government is crucial. Billy James Hargis had used his ACCC Religious organizations as a cover for his own sexual misconduct with minors. This was why his Religious organizations were shut down in the USA. Was Albert Osborne doing the same thing, but in Mexico?

Was this a well-known pattern? What was David Ferrie up to by applying to be a bishop in a mail-order Church? What about his competitor, Jack S. Martin -- another servant of Guy Banister in New Orleans -- what was he up to?

Or -- was Albert Osborne part of a plot to accuse Lee Harvey Oswald of Communist subversion? I think that is the question before historians of this period of US History.

I'm going to guess that his only real crime was child molestation in Mexico, under cover of a Fake Religious organization. I'm going to guess that such criminals worked alone and underground -- although rumors of workable covert scenarios would circulate freely.

The real mystery is why Albert Osborne first told the FBI that, yes, he spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald on that bus to Mexico City from Laredo, Texas -- before he changed his mind. My guess is that he just wanted to tell the FBI what they wanted to hear, so that they would go away. When he realized that this was going to increase the light on him, he quickly changed his story, and back-pedaled as fast as he could.

Then he demanded to know: "Am I the one on trial here? If I'm not under arrest then I am leaving. If I'm under arrest then I want to see my lawyer right away." That was the end of the FBI record on the topic of Albert Osborne and Lee Harvey Oswald.

John - Could you update us on the Bloomfield papers, perhaps by starting a new thread? I understand many have not been released, but it is hard to keep up with this story, and it sounds like you are up on it.

Paul:

Started a new thread on called the "Bloomfield Papers" and have uploaded some of his letters and documents.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Phillipe de Vosjoli, US head of French secret service SDECE. defected to the US in Nov. 1963 and immediately after the assassination flew to Mexico and stayed with Colonel Brandstetter for a few weeks.

Paul,

Are you aware that Phillipe de Vosjoli (not actually the head of SDECE) tried to alert his own government about the many penetrations by-the-Ruskies it had sustained (which he had learned about from true defector Anatoly Golitsyn), but was totally shunned and ignored, probably because of said penetrations, plus the fact that hey, no government wants to admit that it's been "worked"?

And maybe he "fled" to Mexico because he was afraid the Ruskies would find him in the good 'ol U.S.A.?

I am aware that according to Vosjoli, head of SDECE in several New World countries, he had warned SDECE about several Soviet penetration agents, and had been ignored. As you know he defected to the US a few weeks before the JFK assassination. Is it your theory that he fled the US in order to hide from the Russkies?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am aware that according to Vosjoli, head of SDECE in several New World countries, he had warned SDECE about several Soviet penetration agents, and had been ignored. As you know he defected to the US a few weeks before the JFK assassination. Is it your theory that he fled the US in order to hide from the Russkies?

Paul,

That was my own little "theory" that I came up with today after having read in Bagley's "Spy Wars" that, in Bagley's opinion, de Vosjoli is an excellent example of someone who brings correct and dire warnings to his own intelligence agency, and for whatever reason (mostly institutionalized cognitive dissonance, oh-no-it-can't-happen-here mentality, and a healthy dose of embarrassment avoidance syndrome), is shunned, ignored, and blamed for doing so.

That and what you wrote on this thread -- that de Vosjoli defected to the U.S. and then in October,1963, hightailed it (with Angleton's help) to Brandy's place in Mexico.

Since then I've read in Wise's "Mole Hunt" that De Gaulle did order a special unit of French Intelligence to find and kill de Vosjoli.

So you tell me, Paul -- if French intelligence and government was heavily penetrated by KGB (which I believe it was), would it be more correct to say that De Gaulle wanted de Vosjoli dead, or that the Ruskies wanted de Vosjoli dead (before he could uncover any moles or KGB agents in France), or that the Ruskies manipulated the situation and influenced De Gaule into wanting de Vosjoli dead?

That was my own little "theory" that I came up with today after having read in Bagley's "Spy Wars" that, in Bagley's opinion, de Vosjoli is an excellent example of someone who brings correct and dire warnings to his own intelligence agency, and for whatever reason (mostly institutionalized cognitive dissonance, oh-no-it-can't-happen-here mentality, and a healthy dose of embarrassment avoidance syndrome), is shunned, ignored, and blamed for doing so.

That and what you wrote on this thread -- that de Vosjoli defected to the U.S. and then in October,1963, hightailed it (with Angleton's help) to Brandy's place in Mexico.

Since then I've read in Wise's "Mole Hunt" that De Gaulle did order a special unit of French Intelligence to find and kill de Vosjoli.

So you tell me, Paul -- if French intelligence and government was heavily penetrated by KGB (which I believe it was), would it be more correct to say that De Gaulle wanted de Vosjoli dead, or that the Ruskies wanted de Vosjoli dead (before he could uncover any moles or KGB agents in France), or that the Ruskies manipulated the situation and influenced De Gaule into wanting de Vosjoli dead?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The real mystery is why Albert Osborne first told the FBI that, yes, he spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald on that bus to Mexico City from Laredo, Texas -- before he changed his mind. My guess is that he just wanted to tell the FBI what they wanted to hear, so that they would go away. When he realized that this was going to increase the light on him, he quickly changed his story, and back-pedaled as fast as he could.

Then he demanded to know: "Am I the one on trial here? If I'm not under arrest then I am leaving. If I'm under arrest then I want to see my lawyer right away." That was the end of the FBI record on the topic of Albert Osborne and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Osborne never told the FBI that he spoke with Oswald. He said from the beginning of the interviews that he sat next to a man who looked Hispanic and they never conversed. He changed his story about his own identity etc. but not about the apparent Hispanic who sat next to him.

As for Osborne demanding to know if he was on trial, he should have been put on trial for lying, repeatedly, to the FBI. But instead of charging him, that venerable law-enforcement organization simply quit talking to him, i.e. listening to his lies.

Osborne never told the FBI that he spoke with Oswald. He said from the beginning of the interviews that he sat next to a man who looked Hispanic and they never conversed. He changed his story about his own identity etc. but not about the apparent Hispanic who sat next to him.

As for Osborne demanding to know if he was on trial, he should have been put on trial for lying, repeatedly, to the FBI. But instead of charging him, that venerable law-enforcement organization simply quit talking to him, i.e. listening to his lies.

Ron,

In your reading, what is the source of the widespread rumour that Osborne claimed he spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald on Tha Mexico City bus?

I'm not aware of such a rumor. Two Australian ladies on the bus said they heard Osborne, Oswald, and the McFarland couple talking a lot and laughing.

Ron,

OK, that in itself is one source of the rumor -- Pamela Mumford and Patricia Winston from Australia. There is another source, namely, CE 2195, which is an FBI Memo of March 11, 1964, entitled, "Report of SA Emory E Horton. Here is n excerpt from that FBI memo:

Investigation disclosed LEE HARVEY OSWALD made a trip on Fleche Roja Bus leaving Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 9/26/63 and arrived Mexico City, Mexico, 9/27/63 . OSWALD reportedly sat beside an elderly white male on this bus trip . The elderly white male has been identified by other English speaking passengers that were on that bus as ALBERT OSBORNE who is also known as JOHN HOWARD BOWEN.

I know I have seen this rumor in other places as well (e.g. The Torbitt Document), as a sort of dogma about LHO on that bus. (I personally claim that LHO was not on that bus.) The fact that OSBORNE lied about his identity and alias was used as evidence that OSBORNE lied about his denial of speaking to OSWALD on that bus. The matter was left at that.

In my CT, it was J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI who insisted that LHO was on that bus, and they exploited the feeble testimony of Mumford, Winston and the MacFarland couple in establishing this "mistaken identity" sighting as genuine.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

OK, that in itself is one source of the rumor -- Pamela Mumford and Patricia Winston from Australia. There is another source, namely, CE 2195, which is an FBI Memo of March 11, 1964, entitled, "Report of SA Emory E Horton. Here is n excerpt from that FBI memo:

Investigation disclosed LEE HARVEY OSWALD made a trip on Fleche Roja Bus leaving Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 9/26/63 and arrived Mexico City, Mexico, 9/27/63 . OSWALD reportedly sat beside an elderly white male on this bus trip . The elderly white male has been identified by other English speaking passengers that were on that bus as ALBERT OSBORNE who is also known as JOHN HOWARD BOWEN.

The rumor you referred to was that "Osborne claimed he spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald." The Australians didn't say he claimed that so they can't be a source of it and the FBI memo you quote says nothing about Osborne making such a claim.